Alien: Resurrection (1997) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
590 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
Alien=suspense, Aliens=action, Alien³=tragedy, Alien Resurrection=gore
Pluto-314 August 1998
Although it's got major flaws and some plot holes, I find myself liking Alien Resurrection a lot. First of all, I'm a sucker for horror and sci-fi movies. Second, I LOVE the Alien series, although Alien³ was a bit offbeat in the action department. Third, Sigourney Weaver is incredibly menacing as a cloned Ripley. She's always great to see on screen but this was truly something to behold. and last but not least, I loved the storyline, how they brought the genetic aspect so cleverly. It was truly a new twist on the series, although I wouldn't qualify A:R as a REAL episode in the Alien series but rather a new begining. Jean-Pierre Jeunet did a great job in bringing his fantastic style to Hollywood. The creatures were cool and scary although I wish we had seen more of the Queen; we still had the horrific Newborn which was truly demonic. Anyway, despite it's flaws, it's still a great film, although it will never be a classic like Alien and Aliens are. Now if only there could be a fifth one with a better script, more character development and more firepower.
320 out of 476 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The Fatal Mistake.
LordBlacklist9 February 2006
Review 4 of 4

With Alien 3 closing the story arc of the Alien trilogy, this film begins with a fresh slate. The Alien films have always been a director's series but in this film it was the writing that ultimately killed it. Resurrection tries to be too many things at once. It has a very artistic and dynamic visual style, but cardboard characters. It has a very overt sense of humor, but it is all done in a very juvenile manner. Much of the maturity and restraint of the previous three films is thrown out in favor of a more comic book style. The cinematography and set design is gorgeous to the point of decadence. Sigourney Weaver has been given an interesting character to play and does it with a strange sense of detachment that lends more depth to the proceedings than the script ever could. Thinking back, the first three films all had very solid overall stories and well developed characters while Resurrection has a very solid concept but can't seem to build a coherent movie around it. If you follow the overall themes of the series with the first, second and third being birth, life, and death respectively that leaves Resurrection on shaky thematic ground. Since this is Alien: RESURRECTION obviously the filmmakers wished for rebirth to be the theme, but somehow it never quite works. The characters are basically action movie clichés, and the action sequences of the movie are hopelessly contrived. Why does the Alien always stop to snarl before it attacks giving people just enough time to shoot it? Alien 3 did not have this problem and it reinforced how dangerous the creature really was. Resurrection turns the Aliens into monsters from a B-movie. Very few scenes in the film are particularly memorable. Sure, the underwater chase is a nice bit of action derring-do, but there's no real sense of danger...except for the supporting characters you barely know who get killed in the reverse order they appear in the credits. Two fantastic scenes that I wish there were more of in the film are the doctor's examination of the Aliens where he "plays" with them. Now that was a scene of inspired genius. The other scene was when Ripley wakes up in her circular chamber. It is interesting to note that neither of these scenes have any dialogue, because the dialogue is pretty atrocious. Ron Pearlman is always fun to watch and makes a good comic duo with Dominique Pinon, but Winona Ryder absolutely kills this movie with her nonperformance. The effects look less realistic this time out and the score at times seems to try too hard to emulate the second and third films with Goldsmith's original Alien theme being used on several occasions. The film is a brilliant exercise in dynamic visuals but the story really does not go anywhere. Unlike the first three films this one does not take itself seriously at all so the danger level becomes nonexistent. I believe Jean-Pierre Jeunet was an excellent choice for a director but the script served him very badly. This is an interesting film to watch for an interesting scene here and there but not in the same league as the previous films.
252 out of 376 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
"Was it everything you hoped for?"
Anonymous_Maxine30 May 2008
Alien Resurrection was released about six months after I graduated from high school, and at the time I wasn't very familiar with the series. I took my first film class about six months later, at which point I learned to really appreciate the great films and filmmakers, and one of the first things I learned was that the first three Alien films are spectacular achievements of science fiction cinema and the third sequel is a sad, ridiculous mess. This happens all too often with sequels and yes, part four is not yet another amazingly impressive Alien film, but come on, it's not THAT bad.

I watched it last night for the first time in almost ten years, and was surprised at how much I enjoyed it. It's strange that I liked it so much, because it shows all the signs of a botched, modernized sequel of a series that should have been left alone long ago. The characters, most of all, are almost all goofy caricatures with preposterous dialogue and routine motivations, and some just don't belong at all. Personally I am a pretty big fan of Winona Ryder, but only in roles that suit her, and she has had a lengthy list of roles that suit her, but Annallee Call in Alien Resurrection is just not one of them. Too often she comes off as a tough talking teenager in this movie and it just gets hard to take her character seriously. She's like Ja Rule in Half Past Dead, but less ridiculous.

Then again, this could just have been a result of her starring alongside Sigourney Weaver, and that woman is just awesome. Dan Hedaya is suitably over-the-top in his role as the gleefully neurotic General Perez, and I have to admit that I was curious to see the performance of Gary Dourdan as Christie. Lately I've been watching countless hours of CSI on DVD, and it's amazing to see how different his role is in this movie from the most serious role he would play later in that show. I prefer the later performance, myself.

The resurrection implied in the title refers to Ripley being borough back to life 200 years after her death for the purpose of creating one of the alien queens, and then breeding the animals for twisted scientific purposes. They decide to keep Ripley alive for observation after surgically removing the alien from her chest, only to discover that she and the aliens are clearly more than they are prepared to handle. There is a negligible subplot involving a group of shady characters headed by the wonderfully sinister Michael Wincott as a Frank Elgyn, who promises his men won't start trouble or get into any fights if they are allowed to stay on board for a few days and nights.

I also have to mention Ron Perlman, who just has a face for this kind of movie. Probably most recognizable lately as Hellboy, this has to be one of the least appreciated actors of the last few decades. In just over 20 years he has acted in more than 150 films and TV shows, and at the time of this writing he has 18 projects in the works. Unbelievable! He also has one of the best lines in the movie ("Why the waste of ammo?! Must be a chick thing…").

The aliens are probably the thing that will make or break this movie, and in my opinion they were impressive enough. The occasional CGI effects are never convincing, but then again they never are, so luckily they didn't overdo them. Even the aliens swimming underwater was not too much for me to accept, perhaps given the automatic tension that is immediately generated in almost any movie where someone has to hold their breath for a long time. This went on far too long to be anything remotely realistic in this movie, but it was a good scene nonetheless.

I would also argue that this is the goriest of all of the four alien movies, particularly at the end, but also contains some of the best comic relief. This combination makes the movie highly entertaining, even following in the long shadows of its spectacular predecessors. There is a high energy scene in the third act of the film where Perlman's character performs a daredevil stunt to shoot one of the pursuing aliens dead which is followed by what has to be the funniest spider killing in film history. I haven't laughed out loud like that at a movie in a long, long time.

In browsing through the posts on the message board for Resurrection I have been inspired to raise my rating for the movie from a 7 to an 8, if only because it is so obvious that everyone is jumping on the bandwagon about bashing this movie. I see nothing but whiny, pouting little brats whimpering and griping about little nitpicky details in the movie, condemning the third sequel in the Alien quadrilogy as a travesty and an embarrassment and a pathetic way to end the series.

Stupid people in large numbers, man. It's sad to see such a clear mob mentality slamming a movie that is about 100 times better than most people say. No, it's not up to the same level as the first two films and it definitely has its drawbacks, but it is definitely a good installment in the series, and you could certainly do a lot worse for some fun popcorn sci-fi on a Friday night. I'll admit that my judgment might be a little skewed because I watched the staggeringly awful Eaten Alive just before seeing this, but it is clear to me that Alien: Resurrection has yet to receive the respect it deserves.
167 out of 257 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
"Alien: Resurrection"- A fun big-budget 'B-Movie.' Trite and a bit mindless, but ferociously entertaining!
TedStixonAKAMaximumMadness26 November 2017
One of the longest running modern day horror franchises, "Alien" is a fascinating beast in the world of entertainment and media. With its humble origins as a quiet, slow-burn sci-fi thriller, the series evolved through sequels and spin-offs into something else entirely. Whether it be through James Cameron's exquisite action-extravaganza "Aliens", or the Paul W.S. Anderson schlock-tastic crossover "AVP: Alien VS Predator", or even series co-creator Ridley Scott's own pseudo- philosophical quasi-prequel "Prometheus"... "Alien" has changed and evolved quite a bit over the past forty years.

But one release in particular has attracted an almost unanimous scorn and unending ridicule from all over the fanbase. A film that's so reviled, it's almost become a prerequisite that you're just expected to hate it. That being 1997's "Alien: Resurrection"- a strange little footnote in the series that tries its hardest but never quite comes together into much of anything. An attempt to turn the series around after the mixed reception garnered by "Alien 3", this fourth film aims for the stars, but stumbles and falls flat on its face. Although, if I am to be completely honest... I actually don't mind it too much. It's silly, but quite amusing and thrilling, with stylish visual direction and plenty of laughs and thrills to go around. Yes, "Resurrection" might be a mindless and trite exercise in style over substance... but it's also bold and extraordinarily entertaining. It's a ton of fun, even if it is objectively a "bad movie."

Two-hundred years after the events of the previous film, scientists working for the military successfully clone Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) and the queen embryo she had been impregnated with, intent on allowing the alien life-form to reproduce so that they might study its race. This "new" Ripley has retained some faint memories of her former life thanks to genetic memory, but as a result of the cloning process, has also taken on some characteristics of the dreaded "xenomorph" species. When the offspring of the alien queen manage to escape, however, Ripley is forced to team up with a group of mercenary space-pirates (including Ron Perlman, Winona Ryder) in order to escape. Along the way, she will uncover startling and deadly revelations about the project that brought her back to life, and come face to face with a devilish new threat...

Directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet from a script by the world-renowned geek-god Joss Whedon, "Resurrection" does so much right that it's frankly a shame it's so routinely dismissed without much thought. It's essentially an incredibly slick and exceedingly well-made crappy B-movie. The plot is ridiculous. The characters silly and archetypal. And it's filled to burst with nonstop gore and effects. But it's made with a massive budget, an A-list cast and comes from a wildly talented director with a clear vision. Even on a pure aesthetic level, it's one of the most striking films of the franchise, with Jeunet's wonderful eye for flow and composition delivering many incredible set-pieces and designs that'll stick with you. It's just a gorgeous film all around.

The cast is an absolute blast, with Weaver once again knocking it out of the park. Especially as this "new" Ripley also goes through some fascinating changes that both allow Weaver to stretch her acting chops... and have some fun chewing the scenery from time to time. Perlman and Ryder are good fun as members of a space-pirate team, with Perlman in particular being a good fit for the franchise. He's a criminally underrated performer and it's a joy seeing him on- screen. We also get small but fun turns from the likes of Brad Dourif, Dan Hedaya and Michael Wincott, and all serve the film quite well. The effects and action are top-notch for the time, with many sequences still holding up quite well to this day. An underwater chase-scene and a trippy climactic battle against a potential new threat in particular being eye-popping and absolutely jaw-dropping. And the wonderful cinematography and almost amniotic musical score add much to every single scene.

But yeah... despite that praise, the film does have a lot of problems. Like I said above- it's basically a big-budget B-movie filled with the tropes and archetypes you'd expect, and it doesn't fit in with the rest of the series quite well. Unless you're willing to forgive a lot and go with the flow, you're not gonna have a good time with "Resurrection." There has been a lot of talk of how Whedon disowned the film and felt his script wasn't translated properly to screen, and I could definitely see shades of that. For all the amazing things he does, Jeunet seems less interested with story and more interested in increasingly psychotic visuals. And if you're looking for anything more than surface-level entertainment, you'll be sadly let-down.

But me? I take movies for what they are and what they aspire to be. It's clear everyone involved on-screen is having a lot of fun. It's clear that Jeunet is trying to build a wild thrill-ride of a monster-movie. And it's clear that this is a film more concerned with crazed displays of gore and effects than a cohesive story. And you know what? I had a lot of fun with it. It's technically a "bad" movie, but to me... it's a FUN bad movie. And I'm giving it slightly above average 6 out of 10. Give it another shot with an open mind. It just might surprise you how enjoyable "Alien: Resurrection" really is.
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
It might disappoint you and here's why...
AMIO-PatricioMunoz29 September 2005
The first three Alien films have a unique kind of "magic" about them that I think make up the ideal Alien experience.

It is the "ALIEN" atmosphere: The first three films depict a very real world around a mysterious and terrifying ALIEN creature that you feared along with the well developed characters.

Alien Resurrection has a very different flavor. Although it has some serious moments, there are several areas of this film that are out-of-place in both the film and the saga: Alien Resurrection has a number of humorous scenes which I feel take away from the above described overall ALIEN experience. The director goes straight into the action very quickly in this film so the only well developed character is Ripley. I think that the Alien creature loses a lot of its majesty in this film mostly because of these two critical factors.

It is still a must-see film for any Alien fan. It is full of strong cinematic sequences that resonate in your head long after the film is over.

But go in expecting something different.

Enjoy!
105 out of 173 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Although most would view it as an attempt to revive what is called an already dead series, it is actually a great movie with true intrigue and innovation.
CDallas15 March 1999
First off, let me say that I LOVE the Alien series, so please acknowledge that. Here's what I think: The first two Alien films were outstanding. The first is the scariest movie of all time, and the second is the best action film of all time. I think the third was okay, because it did achieve the dark and creepy feel it was going for, but was also a bit of a disappointment. What I think everyone didn't acknowledge about the film was the fact that it did a damn good job of resurrecting the aliens. Think about it. How else can you make a story that takes place after the third one and still star Sigourney Weaver? Don't say to say the third one was a dream, because then that would be corny and immature. I thought that the story was very good. The characters, although slightly wooden, were very well drawn. Several people say that the old Ripley was gone, but by the end of the film, she was acting just like the good ol' gal we all know and love. And something that only one critic acknowledged was this: the newborn alien. WOW! That thing was ugly and scary as hell! That's the type of alien you need for the ending. You've been seeing the same old alien for 3.75 films now, and you've pretty much gotten scared by the creatures as much as you could, why not bring some fresh meat on the scene? And plus, you have to include the alien tradition of battling a new alien at the end of each film. In the first one, Ripley battled a normal alien. In the second one, Ripley battled a queen. And in the third one, Ripley battled a dog alien. To continue the tradition, Ripley battled a human alien. And if I may say, that thing is the scariest of them all. What I don't understand is that everyone says that this series ran out of steam by the beginning of the third one. I disagree. The Alien films still have a flare going, but a fifth one would be all that you could have before the flame burns out. I expect the fifth to be REALLY good, but also tie up the entire story and give an accurate epilogue to the series. And think about this: You're not going to resurrect a series like this just so that you can end the series again just before the credits of the said film. Alien Resurrection was a good movie, and I think that it was as innovative as a third Alien sequel could be.
86 out of 141 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Action packed n much better than part 3.
Fella_shibby29 April 2021
I first saw this in the late 90s.

Revisited all the four parts in the early 2k on dvds which i own.

Revisited this part (116 mins special edition/DC version) few days back as i am on Alien movie marathon n very impatient to check out Prometheus n Covenant.

This movie has lots of action and that too very bloody.

The underwater scene is amazingly shot n it is creepy to see the Aliens swimming.

The clone lab scene is terrifying.

The ending is a bit lol with the decompression stuff and all and that too the Alien baby crying , "oh no".

It has a bloody head smashing a la watermelon bursting scene and once again our android is back.
9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
In space, no one can hear you sigh
pooch-825 February 1999
Alien Resurrection is the most radical departure in the series that has now spanned centuries in its own universe and nearly twenty years of our own earth time. Gone is the meticulously constructed suspense of Ridley Scott's 1979 original. Gone is the heart-stopping pulse of uncannily staged action from James Cameron's 1986 sequel. Gone is the Ripley who cried and fought and bled and sacrificed her own life to save the world from the horror she very nearly unleashed in David Fincher's atmospheric and underrated Alien 3. Instead, we get the all-new Ripley: cynical, sardonic, and ready with a wisecrack or a fist for anyone who crosses her path. Director Jeunet unfortunately seems to bask in self-parody, and this is where the film goes wrong. He serves up plenty of nasty evisceration and gruesome chest-bursting, but by now we have seen so much of the creatures that they are no longer terrifying. Still, I have a lasting affection and fascination with this series -- and Jeunet Alien is better than no Alien.
123 out of 211 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Many flaws, yet so many memorable moments
mr-altex31 March 2019
It is strange, that movie this bad is so memorable and awesome :D

Every other line of script consists loud shouting with close up so the head takes at least 60% of the screen. It is maybe the reason this movie is a walking meme.

It's a horror movie that has given horror theme and basically there are no surprises. You can surprise somebody from behind only couple of times before it gets old. Sometimes the one walking up front gets it, sometimes the one guardian the rear. And this movie does this kinda well, it plays it for its audience.

I liked it. Even back then, still even now. After seeing Alien 2 as a kid, i had nightmares as it was seriously scary movie. But then the A3 + this cured me forever as it does not take itself that seriously. On one hand it's a shame, but on the other hand it's good to have some different take on the same universe.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A 20 year re-review
A_Different_Drummer20 July 2016
I am one of those older (mature) reviewers who can claim to have seen this series in real time, in theatres.

First I will share my recollection of what that was like at the time.

Alien 1 was magnificent. If you were to make a list of the greatest films of all time (and all reviewers do this, if only subconsciously) Alien 1 would be make the list. Alien 2 was doubly astonishing because it was almost as good as Alien 1 and, as any film buff knows, the sequel is rarely if ever that good.

Expectations were high going into Alien 3, the prison planet movie, but the entry was disappointing and for the first time fans started to wonder if the franchise was going to self-destruct.

For this reason, Alien 4, Resurrection, was disappointing in every possible way. It was a weak concept, poorly timed and poorly executed. The template for the story was more "haunted house" than sci-fi. Not only was the story flawed but at the end of the day it ran out of steam after the first 30 minutes and became tedious for the audience, a sin no film should ever commit. All the characters were so unlikable -- including to a large extent Weaver's saucy clone -- that even if the audience WANTED to root for a character, there was no one worthy of the effort.

I got hold of the director's cut and re-reviewed this film because another member posted a review saying this film was unappreciated.

OK, so let's appreciate it for what it is -- a flawed entry that almost destroyed the franchise. The IMDb rating is solid -- in other words, this is really a very weak film.

(To date Alien 1 and 2 remain the best of the series. AVP is a remarkably perky little entry that somehow manages to polarize reviewers who either love it or hate. I have re-watched AVP more than any other entry. It is not elegant but it is very very entertaining.)
26 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The Good, the bad and the ugly.
PredragReviews4 July 2016
Every Alien installment has had a new director at the helm, also bringing about a new style for the series. While Ridley Scott made a more claustrophobic sci-fi horror, James Cameron went all out and made a big combat movie and David Fincher made a more bleaker film which looked better and more "arty". After that film's failure, people thought the series was doomed and wrote it off until a 4th Alien film was announced with Jean-Pierre Jeunet at the helm, director of Delicatessen, City of Lost Children and the later film Amelie. So is it good? Heh... nope. Is there any redeeming quality to it at all? Well let's just say this: you know the film's in trouble when you actually have to think what was good about it.

The story... Ripley's blood/DNA, taken from the hospital ward of the prison colony, is used to create a clone of her former self. Aboard a military science vessel, where now the Alien species are being bred by some deranged scientists, a group of smugglers are hired to provide "bodies" for these disturbing actions. Sigourney Weaver is haunting and rather creepy as this new Ripley who has Alien DNA and a "relationship" with the creatures. Winona Ryder is Call, a renegade and obsolete android who's a recent addition of the space pirates, that get more than they bargained for on this delivery. Fittingly Ripley and Call show the most human character despite their strange background. Most of the other characters are nothing more than bait for the Aliens. Dominique Pinon as the crippled pirate is an exception. Being there are few surprises, this film works better as a Sci-fi/horror adventure film. The story itself is worthy and interesting but underdeveloped. Too much time is spent on the gory attacks. There are too many unnecessary characters as well.

The action in this movie wasn't even slightly believable, starting with the shootout between the criminals and the soldiers aboard the ship. At very short range, every soldier is killed and not a single criminal even wounded. Ripley escaped from certain doom on several occasions - I never felt as if she was in any peril at all. Then the action kept coming to a dead stop just when things were getting interesting. For instance, when everyone is in a huge hurry to get off the ship, Ripley decides to stop and wipe out a room full of failed clones. Truly one of those "Aw, you gotta be kidding me" moments. The set design and the look of the film though was starting to get better, relying on dim corridors and small lighting, much like the first film. And an action scene involving an underwater set is quite thrilling and the aliens certainly never looked better. But ultimately these are kind of superficial since a great scary experience like Alien or a blast like Aliens is sorely missing here. Overall, this movie is not a worthy sequel to the other films. Even Alien 3 was much better than this - it had loads of atmosphere, characters that one cared about, and you actually felt as if they were in extreme danger.

Overall rating: 6 out of 10.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Alien Resurrection (4/10)
skybrick73625 August 2016
The fourth installment to the Alien saga is a film that should absolutely never have been made. The movie was solely made just to cash in on the title without having any creativity or narrative to the stories franchise whatsoever. The thought of bringing Ripley back as a clone is just an outrageous plot line to begin with. Ripley's character completely 180'd in attitude and spirit and other characters in the film are weak, stale and have little character development. The vast majority of this movie is just a big stretch including the ending. One redeeming aspect of Resurrection is that it is ruthless and seemed to have good gore effects that were disturbing and were of quality to the first two alien movies. Otherwise it should be seen as part of the entire franchise but will likely leave you disappointed.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The resurrection of a popular series
dee.reid4 December 2002
Let's recap.

The first alien film, which was directed by Ridley Scott is the film that started it all. Scott's direction was sharp and "Alien" had the most tension-filled setting of the series and it brought to life a truly horrifying creature. But that was twenty-three years ago. "Alien" since it was released in 1979, has become seriously dated and seems to have lost some of its potency.

"Aliens", which was directed by James Cameron, is the most well-known film in the series and the most successful. This time instead of Ripley going up against one alien, she must now go up against an entire nest of the deadly creatures, but with the help of a few good marines added to the bunch. The ultimate question was of course, would excellent firepower be enough to combat the aliens? Cameron focused a lot on action and tension, which transformed "Aliens" into a war movie of sorts. I liked "Aliens" the most and hasn't lost any of its ability to still shock its audience.

"Alien 3", directed by David Fincher, is the most underrated of the series. Fincher changed the series by doing something new with it by adding his trademark dark settings to the film. Instead of continuing the trend that was pioneered by James Cameron, he went back to step one, while still taking the series in a new direction. He created one of the most dark and depressing horror films ever brought to life. Though for some odd reason, audiences missed that entirely. Fincher had originally intended the film to be much longer and with more character development, but executives at Fox had cheated him out of his own vision by removing most of said footage.

Now we have "Alien: Resurrection", released in 1997 and directed by acclaimed French film maker Jean-Pierre Jeunet. Set two-hundred years after the events of "Alien 3", Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) has been cloned from a sample of her DNA and must continue her ongoing fight with the deadly alien this time with the help of a group of futuristic space pirates and a mysterious woman named Call (Winona Ryder).

It goes without saying that Jeunet is a visual genius. He has a real sense of bringing life into his scenes and giving the movie a fantastic look. The gore here is pretty extreme and some scenes will certainly make your skin crawl, turning the movie into a freak show of sorts. But that could ultimately be what Jeunet was trying to do, I'm not quite sure. That is no reason to hate this film however. An excellent addition to the series that is not to be missed.
62 out of 114 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The black sheep of the "Alien" franchise is good, gory fun.
BeanieCore22 November 2020
Here we have the black sheep of the Alien franchise. After the disaster that was "Alien 3", it's obvious that producers were looking to go in the polar opposite direction of that film. So this is a bombastic, almost comic book-like horror/action film. It certainly contains more gore and dark humor than any other film in the series, but in my opinion, it's a welcome divergence. Perhaps it was a bit too much for audiences at the time, and it's far from a perfect film, but also far from bad or mediocre. It hits that sweet spot right between "decent" and "good", that's simply fun. Screenwriter Joss Whedon was brought on board, so it's no surprise that the film has the feel of a comic. The direction and artistry of Jean-Pierre Jeunet shines through as well. Jeunut was known for his colorful, artistic fantasy films such as "The City Of Lost Children" and "Delicatessen", and he brings his distinct visual flair to this film, making it easily the most visually stunning installment in the franchise. The effects work is also brilliant. The Xenomorphs are shown far more often in this film than any other, but somehow this works. The focus here isn't so much on suspense or tension, and rather gory, witty fun, so seeing the monsters more often is a given. I'm also of the opinion that the "hybrid" creature at the end of the film is terrifying, and one of the most fascinating monster designs in cinematic history.

The cast helps keep things moving, with a colorful collection of characters. Sigourney Weaver obviously relishes exploring new aspects of Ripley's character, and spouting more sarcastic one-liners. Ron Perlman steals his scenes as, well, himself, and Dominique Pinon gives the most memorable turn as a wheelchair-bound badass with a heart of gold. And the film is at it's best when delivering crazy action scenes and inventive gore. It's not as strong on story, but the Alien franchise has never been about complex mythology, and this one honestly takes it's plot in some more daring, and interesting directions. It doesn't deserve the ridicule it gets, and I always have tons of fun re-watching it. A shame we never got a continuation of this style and story, because it could've taken the franchise to some creative new places.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not bad
lagudafuad11 April 2012
The fourth installment in the Alien Franchise was Alien Resurrection which had Ripley (Sigourney Weaver), cloned after she died 200 years ago in Alien 3. The cloned Ripley had in her, the DNA of the Alien so what they company had "CLONED" was a hybrid, a human and the alien DNA mixed.

The new Ripley had in her chest the Queen Embryo, which was removed as soon as the cloning process was a success, and she was studied and she bred a new kind of Alien.

Well, the company also had Alien eggs and they captured men in hyper-sleep and used them to breed the Alien. They caged them and tried to train them but soon the Aliens got smart and broke free and again all hell broke loose.

What makes this last installment to the franchise good was the suspense, in every turn there is something you thought you had figured out till it changes the next second making the story also dynamic. Written by Joss Whedon, who had worked on Buffy the Vampire slayer before this, the story and screenplay had enough action to keep you on the edge of your sit.

The actors were on their toes delivering their lines and their interpretation of character with finesse. Another thing that did it for me was the idea to use the Alien's blood as part of the script, not much about this acid blood has occurred in the previous two installments. But here it played a vital role in the story.

It was also directed by another director, a French director Jean-Pierre who I have to give kudos to, as he did a fine job in delivery. The CGI and the effects in this installment was better than all previous 3 put together, and it has to be said even though this is not better than 2 (Aliens (1986)), it redeemed the image of the franchise.

All in all, it is not a bad re watch.
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Don't think of it as an Alien film
Josh-is-not-you9 March 2006
Don't think of Alien Resurrection as an Alien film, but rather a Joss Whedon film. Yes it's different. But the others are separate types of movies also. Alien is a creepy monster thriller. Aliens is an action movie. Alien3 is a goth nightmare gone wrong. Alien Resurrection is a Whedon film. Me being a big fan of Firefly/Serenity and his Astonishing X-Men comic book series loved this film dearly. Yes it may require some thinking to understand, due to the cloning and cross-breeding stuff. But it isn't bad to have Hollywood make you think with an action/horror movie. If you think of this a different kind of movie I think you'll enjoy it like I did. But if you are looking for the same kind of movie a before you might a well pass this one.
69 out of 136 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Did we need a fouth?
bob the moo17 October 2001
Following the disappointment of alien3's performance and the death of Ripley, it was thought that the alien franchise was finished, going out on a high - the completion of the films and Ripley, with Ripley dying in the struggle to kill the alien that had become her whole life.

Once the potential earnings had been calculated, it probably didn't take very long to decide to piece together a sequel. This was always going to be messy - can you do an Alien movie without Weaver? How can you bring your main character back to life? Alien v's Predator anyone?! Once they pieced together a script and got Weaver on board it was all set to go.

Let me lay my cards on the table - I don't like this film. Yes, the direction is brilliant visually with some great set pieces. The story is good for some of the film, turning the conspiracy story up to 10 with aliens being bred in captivity, but after the aliens get out the story is mostly a chase and kill deal and then goes onto some nonsense about a new breed of alien that looks like milky bars!

Apart from the visuals and the conspiracy angle this is pretty ordinary stuff, it doesn't deserve to be part of such a classic series. As a stand alone film it is OK but an Alien movie can't be just OK. The performances are so-so, Weaver enjoys the fact that her character is allowed to be more powerful than usual but this doesn't actually make it a better performance, the fact that Jeunet fills the film with the French actors from his other films makes it slightly more interesting but no less average.

Just because Jeunet put the guns back into the Alien series doesn't make it good. There isn't anywhere near the tension of the other movies and there's certainly no horror. A good sci-fi movie but it could be any movies, there's nothing that really means it could only be an Alien movie here.
26 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Utter crap
Hippi18 January 1999
There must have been some very good reasons for the release of this film, but on the evidence of how the film turned out, this film should not have seen the daylight. Almost everything is done wrong: Ripley's character is ruined in to a clone, supporting characters are simply idiots, the aliens only manage to be scary in one single scene and the ending is without any scientific base or sense of logic. The new alien, Newborn, goes only for a bad joke. What was about to be an exciting twist in the overlong tale of Ripley came out as as repulsing variation of a cheap splatter film. This film is horrifying in all the ways the makers didn't intend.
30 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Horrible!!!!!!!
mbanwait30 July 2002
What a disgrace this movie is to all ripley fans. The first one was a tense masterpiece. The second by james cameron was an all out action fest with a great score. The third one was watchable because it showcased the david fincher dark flair. The fourth one is pathetic. Who is this director? Why is midget wynona ryder in an action movie? Why does Ripley want to cuddle with the alien? Piece of crap, but any fan of the series will check it out anyways. Be forewarned that it is absolutely the worst of the series!
32 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Sad, sad ending(?) to such a good movie series
Zahgurim15 February 2002
Well, what can I say about this one? It has totally lost whatever it was that made the other movies good. Sure, they have all been a little worse then the one before, starting With the excelent Alien, followed by the almost excelent aliens and then the okay movie Alien3. But this, is a total letdown. In my opinion there is no reason to see this one. Actually, if you've seen the others, it's even more reason to skip this one as it takes some of the "glow" from the others by bringing down the franchise.

It's not so strange though... The best movies seldom benefit from a followup. (There are exceptions though)

So, don't see this movie unless you feel you have to. You are likely to be very, very disapointed.
14 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
THE MOTHER LOAD
waynegavin12 February 2020
RIPLEY is back as the ALIEN franchise gets a re boot,RIPLEY is dead yes we know but now she has been cloned and enhanced in an effort to give birth to the XENOMORPH that grew inside her,an unexpected visit from a mercenary crew ship sets things in motion here as RIPLEY is introduced to outsiders,the mercenary crew are ruthless and lawless but its not long before they realize that RIPLEY is their only hope of survival.one by one the party diminishes and the enemies grow as it becomes apparent the XENOMORPH is not the only enemy.RIPLEY is challenged by a new adversary and the XENOMORPH is evolving.a significant sequel making the ALIEN franchise a SAGA and its a decent sci-fi movie,RIPLEY will have her last outing here and she wont disappoint but the franchise will not end here.
9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Actually a great Alien film, just not the one fanboys wished for..
alisoncolegrooveq1 January 2008
Easily stands up to repeated viewings and the director and designer's fresh take actually bring something genuinely quirky and interesting to the Alien series. It's a shame this film is much maligned, it's actually a fantastic film with some genuinely suspenseful and icky moments... There was never going to be a point in retreading Scott's or Cameron's takes..and after what the studio did to dir Fincher on Alien 3 the franchise definitely needed the touch of an auteur with an inventive vision.

I just saw Heaven's Gate after many years of reading what a terrible film it supposedly was - only to discover it's actually a great film... I hope time is the great equalizer for films like AR..many appalling films get lauded and do very well commercially whilst often audiences and critics don't understand or appreciate certain others because they do not suit the times or fashion..

Alien Resurrection is one of those breaths of fresh air that operates on a level above what many so obsessed with the genre are able to appreciate.

When you consider how truly awful the AvP films have been this is easily a masterpiece by comparison!
21 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Spectacular sequel with twisted intrigue , disgusting special effects and lots of blood and gore
ma-cortes12 June 2014
This is a visually impressive and exciting Sci/Fi following plenty of thrills , action , chills and many other things . The story takes place in 2379, 200 years after "Aliens" and "Alien 3" (2179) and also takes place 257 years after "Alien" (2122). As 200 years after her death, Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) is revived as a powerful human/Alien hybrid clone who must continue her war against the Aliens . Meanwhile , military and scientists (Dan Hedaya , Brad Dourif , J.E. Freeman) are carrying out strange experiments . As Aliens escape and then the Earthlings (Winona Ryder , Dominique Pinon , Ron Perlman , Kim Flowers , Gary Dourdan and Michael Wincott) have a hard time figuring out the whereabout of the heinous beings that are running amok .

This horrifying as well as heart-pounding movie contains shocks , stomach-churning violence , chills , profanity , thrills and results to be pretty entertaining . This nail-biting picture contains tension from start to finish , gory scenes aplenty , thrills , some strong scares , slime , emotion , entertainment and good acting . It is a superb cinematic combination of Sci-Fi , monster movie and terror . This is a brutal , considerable violent and exciting sci-fi thriller that scales new heights of savagery even by the standards of the 70s , 80s and 90s. The result is a throughly violent but undeniably thrilling action movie with a strong cast giving sweatily good value to their abrasive characters . Spectacular as well as bloody slaughter sequences took long time to shoot and were extremely difficult to make . Magnificently designed creatures , originally created by the artist HR Giger . However , this time H.R. Giger was openly displeased that he wasn't given a credit for his alien designs and fired off a letter of protest to 20th Century Fox . Interesting as well as twisted screenplay by Joss Whedon , though he has commented on his dissatisfaction with the movie , fans had speculated that the finished article deviated from his original script in some fatal manner, however he put such rumors to rest ; his dialogue, action and plot were essentially intact . However he had written with a playful, tongue-in-cheek tone, which didn't work when the director decided to "play it straight". Sigourney Weaver breathes fire into Ripley and remaining actors are all magnificent as the crew of a futurist starship . This is the only Alien movie not to be shot in England , one of the reasons for this was that co-producer Sigourney Weaver didn't want to travel . Sigourney Weaver was paid $11 million to come back as Ripley, which was the entire budget of Alien ,(1979) . The ending part is particularly exciting with Sigourney Weaver battling the malicious alien and with exciting underwater scenes that took three weeks to film . The underwater segment was shot on a specially constructed sound stage on the Fox lot, which was converted into a permanent water-tank . The production had trouble finding enough studio space as major productions like Titanic (1997), Starship Troopers (1997) and Jurassic Park (1997) were all taking up most of the available studio space in Hollywood . This ¨Alien: Resurrection¨ by Jean Pierre Jeunet has an extraordinary cast such as Winona Ryder , Dominique Pinon , Ron Perlman , Gary Dourdan and Michael Wincott . The picture packs an original music by John Frizzell , plenty of thrilling and moving sounds . Colorful and adequate cinematography by Darius Khondji . The $50-60 million budget was significantly lower than the director Jeunet and writers originally imagined , being filmed at Fox studios in Los Angeles, California . Therefore, sets were toned down in scale and a more claustrophobic shooting approach with a lot of close-ups to characters' faces was taken .

The gaps between the four Alien films steadily decreased. There was seven years between the release of Alien (1979) and Aliens (1986), six between Aliens and Alien 3 (1992), and five between Alien³ and Alien resurrection (1997). The original and the best was ¨Alien¨ by Ridley Scott , it was starred by Weaver , John Hurt, Lance Henriksen , Ian Holm , Tom Skerrit , Harry Dean Stanton , Ian Holm , John Hurt ; it is followed by ¨Aliens ¨, also visually astounding by James Cameron with Paul Reiser , Bill Paxton , Jenette Goldstein , Lance Henriksen ; Alien 3 ¨ in which the alien regenerates and causes wreak havoc on isolated planet prison , being directed by David Fincher with Charles S Dutton , Paul McGann , Charles Dance . All of them starred by the great Sigourney Weaver who performed one of the best female leads created in years . Furthermore, ¨Alien vs. Predator¨ (2004) by Paul Anderson with Sanaa Lathan , Raoul Bova , Lance Henriksen , Colin Salmon , Tommy Flannagan and ¨Aliens vs. Predator 2¨ (2007) by Strause Brothers with Steven Pasquale , Reiko Aylesworth , John Ortiz , Johnny Lewis and Robert Joy .
13 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Let sleeping dogs lie?
hitchcockthelegend18 July 2016
Directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet, the makers here basically stick safe to the formula of the series. This time it's a space station with space pirates and a cloned Ripley (Siggy Weaver of course) - yes! A cloned Ripley, only this time she's devoid of human compassion - kind of... The gore quota is significantly upped, which makes for some serious sci-fi terror, and some of the imagery crafted is outstanding (a clone lab sequence is shatteringly unforgettable). A tip top cast featuring Ron Perlman, Michael Wincott, Brad Dourif, Dan Hedaya and Winona Ryder, all give good shows, whilst the photography (Darius Khondji/Se7en) and art design (Steve Cooper, Andrew Neskoromny and John M. Dwyer) takes the breath away. Yet come the final straight it loses its way, sinking into a mire of over confidence, topped by a crown of thorns involving an albino baby alien hybrid. Shame that. 6.5/10
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
It think it was a good story but it still wasn't "Alien" material:
the_big_one6428 June 2004
I think that the whole story was good but the script was in ways stupid and some of the acting was shitty but there were some good key points in the movie. The reason why I think that it wasn't "Alien" material because there was to much comedy even though the second installment of Alien had some comedy in it, it still didn't seem like it went over board like I thought it did in the forth installment but if thats what the director wanted then thats the way it would be but it didn't fit but this is my own felling about the movie but don't get me wrong it was still a good movie I think it deserved better then a 6.0 out of 10 vote maybe more like a 7.0 but remember this is only me comments.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed